Let’s share

[ibelk]

A most interesting chain of reasoning, thanks for sharing.  But I'd like to give some extra explanation of my point of view. If copying is intended to be a holy religious act, then mechanical copying isn't the expected kind of copying. This is what I meant and I'll try to show why I think so.

Who cares about what you feel or think — just don't make mistakes!

This is the crucial point. I would agree with this, and with your whole reasoning, if the kopimists hadn't claimed themselves to be a religious movement and copying to be a holy religious act. I suppose that for an act to be recognised as religious it's of the highest importance what the person performing this act thinks and feels.

Religion is a particular system of faith and worship. A religious act is an act of faith and worship. Worshipping implies the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for something divine. Machines, computers, software etc. are not capable of having and expressing those feelings, so they are unable to worship anything, as well as they are unable to have any faith. It's quite obvious to me that only human beings can be religious, whatever personal views the spiritual leader of the kopimists may have. No computer, bot, or software can perfom a religious act.

Further, if a human being copies precisely and superfast loads and loads of information, but doesn’t feel or express reverence and adoration for the object of his/her religious worship (i.e. for the information itself) while copying, he/she doesn't perform a religious act. It's the same thing with a careless and thoughtless mechanical prayer which is just a dull and useless repetition of a set of words and no religious act at all. 

As for my words about the spiritual importance of copying performed as a sacred act, it's only my strong belief that any religion should give some spiritual satisfaction to its followers in exchange of fulfilling its requirements.

[Yuri P]

Oh, great, then anything can be a religious act. For example, I could religiously go to the toilet and do my little business there thinking about something divine.

[mirock]

Oh, great, then anything can be a religious act. For example, I could religiously go to the toilet and do my little business there thinking about something divine.

What we can say there, when for someone religiously murder is be a normal. Toilet fades in compare with this. 

[ibelk]

Oh, great, then anything can be a religious act. For example, I could religiously go to the toilet and do my little business there thinking about something divine.

If you would choose this act as your ritual for expressing reverence and adoration for the object of your faith, yes.   There is a diverse range of religious acts, from killing people, as mirock rightly remarked, to kissing the shoe of the high priest or having sex with temple prostitutes. But to be recognised as a religion by the state, your system of faith and worship must meet certain official requirements. I wonder what the requirements for a religious organisation in Sweden are? Are they less strict than in Russia? What shall I do to found a new officially recognised religion to worship my pet dog, for example? I'm ashamed to say I don't know what our law says about religion and religious organisations.  

To be honest I can't take all this kopimism stuff seriously. I suspect all they really want, in addition to gaining publicity, is to get a convenient excuse for not following copyright restrictions on sharing information. Not a legal excuse, of course, but at least a moral one. Political correctness watchfully safeguards the rights of religious minorities.  

P.S. By the way, when I was reading about the recognition of the Church of Kopimism, one story emerged from my memory by some vague association.
The story is from the book "Конец феминизма" by A.Nikonov, it was told to the author by Alexandr Gordon and goes back to the time when Gordon lived in the USA.
Shortly and from memory: Once Gordon and his father went fishing, caught some fish, and decided to make them into "vobla". They salted the fish, hung them for drying on the balcony, and went away somewhere on business. When they returned, about a week later, they found the door of Gordon's apartments sealed by the house administrator. As it turned out one of Gordon's neighbours was going to prosecute him for keeping dead fish on the balcony. Then Gordon had a brainwave. He went to the administrator and said: "Hanging dried fish on the balcony in summer is a Russian religious custom. Fish is the Christian symbol; you made me remove my fish; my religious feelings are hurt. I'll prosecute both of you for the violation of my constitutional religious right, how can my lawyer get in touch with your and that bitch's lawyers?" The administrator and the neighbour quailed, and the court claim against Gordon was withdrawn. 

I don't know how believable the story is, but if it's true it makes a good illustration of the fact that "argument to religious rights" can be very effective.