PDA

View Full Version : Cults - Should They Be Outlawed?



Athena
May 7th, 2008, 05:10 PM
Cult: a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

We, in America, have a blessed Constitution - one which provides us myriad freedoms not typically enjoyed anywhere else, or to such an extend. It outlines rights that our founding fathers, rightfully so, considered to be absolute. Still, our government has an interest in protecting its citizens and, as a result, imposes reasonable limits on the rights. We have the right to bear arms, but are limited in the type of arms we can bear and circumstances under which we bear them. We have the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, but can be pulled over at sobriety checkpoints in the absence of justifiable suspicion. Likewise, we enjoy a freedom of religion, one that I propose a reasonable limitation to.

Cults have proven to be environments especially conducive to abuse and manipulation. Suicide, murder and sexual abuse are events that have become practically synonymous with the operations of a standard, American cult. Because we are so protective of our freedom of religion, the atrocities committed by such organizations fly under our radar for extended periods of time. We turn a blind eye until we're forced to do otherwise, afraid that any scrutiny may be perceived as prejudice against minority religions that already deal with judgment from larger, more established sects.

Some other Western governments disagree, however. Both Germany and France have laws restricting cult-like establishments. As one might expect, the U.S. government suggests that these laws have contributed to the prejudice against religious minorities that appears to exist in France. I assert that, in the absence of anti-cult legislation, American cults are contributing to this prejudice themselves.

This is not an argument that begun, nor will it end, with the FLDS in Texas. The stand-off that resulted in the fiery deaths of nearly 100 Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas in 1993 is easily recalled. Just yesterday, the head of an apocalyptic cult was arrested and charged with felony sex crimes (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080507/ap_on_re_us/church_children_seized;_ylt=AoyP.8ksiB0nTrjzu_uojQ xvzwcF). From Jim Jones to Charles Manson to Joseph Smith, there are countless cults that have centered around and, perhaps, were created for the expressed purpose of enticing sexual service from followers.

How long will we provide such a favorable environment to these fundamentally corrupt organizations? I am not proposing a ban. In Seattle, groups of people exceeding 6 members who are walking the streets can be regarded as "gangs" and be treated with extra scrutiny by police. There is no evidence to suggest that police are abusing this policy. This is all I am asking for - legislation that will provide for extra scrutiny to be paid to groups clearly defined as cults.

Pete Bondurant
May 7th, 2008, 08:17 PM
Cults - Should They Be Outlawed?


Yes. Cults should be outlawed.

CPL CHUD
May 7th, 2008, 11:58 PM
If it isn't violating the law in some way, or opposed to society's objective moral sphere, then let it be. I'm prejudiced and opposed to religion, but not choice.

Raq me darkly
May 8th, 2008, 04:22 PM
Many religions began as cults (Christianity is a good example here). Cults that are harmful will eventually die off, ones that provide something for the members (comfort, security, etc) will likely last and may become accepted as religions.

And then there is Scientology :diablo:

Death Angel
May 8th, 2008, 04:26 PM
Cult: a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.


what if i considered all religion was false.... no i dont think it should be

Athena
May 8th, 2008, 04:47 PM
If it isn't violating the law in some way, or opposed to society's objective moral sphere, then let it be. I'm prejudiced and opposed to religion, but not choice.

But, how do we determine laws? Just because something isn't illegal yet doesn't mean it never should be. Many of our laws criminalize things simply because they increase risk. Cults, as they are defined above, increase risk. Do they not deserve a greater amount of scrunity as a result?

CPL CHUD
May 8th, 2008, 11:42 PM
But, how do we determine laws? Just because something isn't illegal yet doesn't mean it never should be. Many of our laws criminalize things simply because they increase risk. Cults, as they are defined above, increase risk. Do they not deserve a greater amount of scrunity as a result?
If they are causing harm in some way, sure. People should have the freedom to believe anything they want, scrutinization of particular sets of believers should only be the result of the group acting in ways that might upset the greater good, or go against the objective moral sphere most people agree on, and are the basis of established laws. If the cult believes in mass suicide, then surely we should scrutinize, and step in if the disturbance is that note worthy, but if they believe in worshiping unicorns by eating lolipops every Wednesday we don't really have to actively pursue terminating their existence.

Idealistically I'd like to see all religion go away. This will happend gradually. Immediately decreeing them illegal is too abrasive. Decreeing any sort of belief illegal is wrong. Rather we should, and do, judicate action.

My prejudice against religion is one thing. I also have a prejudice to hate people of different skin tone, to drink beer untill I'm a total waste case, to overeat.....but my pursuit of the greater moral good is quite another story. Eliminating other people's choice to rally around idiotic beliefs and epistemologies is not keeping with my pursuit of objective morality.

I can identify and see past my own bullshit.

AnalBreeze
May 8th, 2008, 11:51 PM
Cult: a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.


Yes cults should be outlawed but when you put it like that....
It kinda sounds like us here at the Demon with our own charismatic leader! Just sayin' :rolleyes:

Boondock
May 9th, 2008, 01:09 AM
Yes cults should be outlawed but when you put it like that....
It kinda sounds like us here at the Demon with our own charismatic leader! Just sayin' :rolleyes:

ROFL... Wow, talk about a perception switch:lol:

Athena
May 9th, 2008, 10:43 AM
If they are causing harm in some way, sure. People should have the freedom to believe anything they want, scrutinization of particular sets of believers should only be the result of the group acting in ways that might upset the greater good, or go against the objective moral sphere most people agree on, and are the basis of established laws. If the cult believes in mass suicide, then surely we should scrutinize, and step in if the disturbance is that note worthy, but if they believe in worshiping unicorns by eating lolipops every Wednesday we don't really have to actively pursue terminating their existence.

Idealistically I'd like to see all religion go away. This will happend gradually. Immediately decreeing them illegal is too abrasive. Decreeing any sort of belief illegal is wrong. Rather we should, and do, judicate action.

My prejudice against religion is one thing. I also have a prejudice to hate people of different skin tone, to drink beer untill I'm a total waste case, to overeat.....but my pursuit of the greater moral good is quite another story. Eliminating other people's choice to rally around idiotic beliefs and epistemologies is not keeping with my pursuit of objective morality.

I can identify and see past my own bullshit.

I don't know. To me, it's not unlike speeding laws. I speed every day and have never caused an accident as a result. It is not, in and of itself, inherently dangerous, but it does increase the level of risk which is why, if I am engaged in such behavior, I deserve to get pulled over and disciplined.

I'm not about restricting choice, either...Unless that choice presents an increase in risk. I'm not proposing an all out ban - simply to qualify them for more scrutiny.

CPL CHUD
May 9th, 2008, 01:07 PM
I don't know. To me, it's not unlike speeding laws. I speed every day and have never caused an accident as a result. It is not, in and of itself, inherently dangerous, but it does increase the level of risk which is why, if I am engaged in such behavior, I deserve to get pulled over and disciplined.Here is where we have to be a bit careful. Driving a vessel constructed of steel and weighing on average more than a ton down a path of common travel usage at speeds statistically determined to be more dangerous would qualify an inherit risk IMO. We are dealing with degrees here, but believing in something is not inherently dangerous all in itself, it's what those beliefs consist of, wherein no matter how you do it speeding is speeding which is still dangerous.

In the end this is semantics of course. We more or less agree. Cheers!