Could we ban fundamentalism?

[Brain_Caster]

How the hell are you supposed to legislate for what people believe in? And from where do you take the right to do it, for that matter?

You make being a member of a given group illegal. Wasn't it done before with the Communist party?

Just because you can ban organisations doesn't mean you actually can ban the ideology behind that organisation. You can't change what people believe in by telling them that their not allowed to believe in it. Nor should any state claiming to be a enlightened democracy attempt such a thing. (I know it has happened, but that doesn't make it right)

[Darth Servo]

Just because you can ban organisations doesn't mean you actually can ban the ideology behind that organisation.

You can when the only qualification for being a member of said organization is holding its beliefs. Communists have no formal initiation ritual. You only had to agree with Marx's economic system.

[Wicked Pilot]

Interesting. Are there figures over the last century? A line graph would be really helpful.

It's difficult to get hard numbers on fundamentalism and atheism because even the slightest difference on how you phrase the questions and possible responses will play havoc with your numbers. You'd need someone giving the exact same survey again and again over a century's time, which I doubt has been done.

[Rye]

How the hell are you supposed to legislate for what people believe in? And from where do you take the right to do it, for that matter?

Concern for my fellow man. If a church says that you aren't to vaccinate your kids or allow them blood transfusions and ripping families apart that do those things, it should be shut down for putting its members and dependents at risk. If a church or mosque is so rabidly anti-gay or antisemitic to the end of dividing the community and increasing tension and making violent clashes more likely, it should be shut down. Less lethal infractions against society like creationism should probably incur a fine or something.

[Brain_Caster]

Concern for my fellow man. If a church says that you aren't to vaccinate your kids or allow them blood transfusions and ripping families apart that do those things, it should be shut down for putting its members and dependents at risk.

I'll be the first to call them a bunch of idiotic dipshits for it. I'd also fully support any initiative by the state to publically call them a bunch of idiotic dipshits, and if any of their followers actually are stupid enough to listen to them and get themselves infected with easily avoided disease XY because they aren't vaccinated I'd sure as hell charge them extra. In other words: get vaccinated or your contribution to the social health care system rises by the amount your stupidity will (statistically) cost the state.

But fact is, I (or you) don't have a right to make them shut up by force or law. It's called freedom of opinion, and the fact that their opinion is a pile of demented bullshit doesn't change that they have a right to express it. Or ruin their life with stupid decisions, if that's what they want.


Admittedly, it gets much more complicated if children who are to young to make their own decisions are involved. But what do you plan to do? Take them away from their parents? Excluding really extreme cases that's likely to do more damage than good and the legal possiblity to do so in specific less extreme cases could probably be abused in a thousand ways (and therefore will be abused).

If a church or mosque is so rabidly anti-gay or antisemitic to the end of dividing the community and increasing tension and making violent clashes more likely, it should be shut down.

If they're preaching violence I agree that there should be legal consequences, even including jail sentences. Note, however, that they're being punished because they're commiting a clearly criminal act that will harm others, not because they're fundie scum. You can't just punish people because of what they are or what they think, only because of what they do.

Less lethal infractions against society like creationism should probably incur a fine or something.

What's next, fining people because they disagree with you? Because that's what you're proposing. The fact that you're right and they're wrong doesn't change this.

[Rye]

I'll be the first to call them a bunch of idiotic dipshits for it. I'd also fully support any initiative by the state to publically call them a bunch of idiotic dipshits, and if any of their followers actually are stupid enough to listen to them and get themselves infected with easily avoided disease XY because they aren't vaccinated I'd sure as hell charge them extra. In other words: get vaccinated or your contribution to the social health care system rises by the amount your stupidity will (statistically) cost the state.

So, in the meantime, people being programmed with stupid things that cause verifiable harm to society that could be dealt with by shutting down a church, and your solution is to let these things continue to happen but also set up an elaborate personal fining system with a ton of bureaucracy? Wouldn't it make more sense to just shut down a church that's putting people at undue risk?

But fact is, I (or you) don't have a right to make them shut up by force or law.

So you oppose the storming of suicide cults, presumably?

It's called freedom of opinion, and the fact that their opinion is a pile of demented bullshit doesn't change that they have a right to express it. Or ruin their life with stupid decisions, if that's what they want.

Why not? Do you oppose seat belt laws too, even though their application verifiably saves lives? The freedom to the opinion is still there, they're just having verifiably harmful expression of those opinions banned.

Admittedly, it gets much more complicated if children who are to young to make their own decisions are involved. But what do you plan to do? Take them away from their parents? Excluding really extreme cases that's likely to do more damage than good and the legal possiblity to do so in specific less extreme cases could probably be abused in a thousand ways (and therefore will be abused).

Yeah, if a parent would let their kid die, they are not fit to be a parent, so I would advise taking the kid from that household. Do you disagree?

If they're preaching violence I agree that there should be legal consequences, even including jail sentences.

Why? Are they not individuals making their own moral judgments now? Why don't you propose a system where they could pay their victims or something as asinine? A fundamentalist church may dance around the issue of telling their followers that they should start killing sodomites, but all the time reinforce God's assertion that sodomites must be destroyed.

Note, however, that they're being punished because they're commiting a clearly criminal act that will harm others, not because they're fundie scum. You can't just punish people because of what they are or what they think, only because of what they do.

Ordering someone to attack someone is just an intention expressed and communicated between minds. The order itself does not cause the damage, neither does the concept, it's the actions based on it that are harmful. However, as a society, we can allocate blame to the source of the order and the person who acted on it, if a church exists in an area and is obviously inflaming tensions where none would exist before and making violence much more likely, a society shouldn't have a problem shutting it down.

An example, if I went into a mosque and demanded that all the guys in there kill a gay man outside, I could be arrested when I had next to no chance of influencing their behaviour to that end. If a preacher goes on and on about how God thinks gays are an abomination in a deeply religious area rife with "queer bashing" or whatever, aren't his words more likely to cause a gay man to get beaten up than mine?

What's next, fining people because they disagree with you? Because that's what you're proposing. The fact that you're right and they're wrong doesn't change this.

I meant the political movement to get creationism/ID/etc into schools. If it was a situation where a church was preaching segregation or white supremacy instead of creationism, lobbying those in power to change educational laws according to those doctrines, and actually getting some headway in ignorant areas, why shouldn't they be fined for persistently trying to pervert education?

[SWPIGWANG]

THROW THEM TO THE LIONS!!!!!11111


*ah culture warfare is always messy....*

[skotos]

My plan would be to construct a mental health act that penalises any organisation, church, mosque, whatever, with unhealthy antisocial teachings and actually inspires social division and mental problems.

Well, obviously, this isn't practical. If Iraq has taught us anything, it has taught us that people are perfectly willing to kill themselves to further unhealthy antisocial teachings.

As far as the US is concerned, this would be practical if you could get thirty eight states to agree. Good luck with that.

Then there's the problems in any implementation of this proposal, regardless of public opposition to it. These are the criteria you've put forth. To be banned, an organization would have to have teachings which are:

1) Unhealthy
2) Antisocial

And which inspire

3) Social divisions
4) Mental health problems

1 is the most doable, although defining "unhealthy" is not trivial. For instance, the use of steroids, although it has obvious and severe side effects, can still better a person's life (for instance, by making them better at playing baseball). So how do we judge whether the damage done to a person's body by steroids outweighs the benefit that their body has derived from the use of steroids? Or, to make this directly relevant, how do we decide if an organization that promotes the use of steroids is in violation of your law?

2 we could implement if we could define what "antisocial" means. For instance, imagine a community in which there is widespread hatred and distrust of a minority. We could argue that advocating the destruction of the minority is antisocial because the minority is after all part of the society, and therefore advocating their destruction is inherently antisocial. Or we could argue that we must destroy the minority, because elimination of the minority will bring the society closer over all.

The same argument applies to 3, only more so. Imagine a society divided into two groups. We could try to enforce a law that would slowly blend the two groups until there was no practical division between them. Alternately, we could simply eliminate one of the two groups, thereby ending social divisions altogether (I realize of course that any real society has a huge number of divisions, I'm just using this example to illustrate the practical difficulty).

Finally, we have the most problematic goal, 4) Mental health problems. The problem here is that it is very difficult to define what a "mental health problem" is. In the US, for instance, a sizeable portion of the population, possibly the majority, believe that atheism would constitute a "mental health problem". Although we can certainly find some common ground about certain conditions or beliefs being mental health problems (schizophrenia, sociopathy, etc.), there will be widespread disagreement even among reasonable people regarding what mental health problems actually are.


I imagine that your proposal would become more practical if we had strict definitions of the criteria. I don't think it would, only because I think any precise definition would piss off enough people so that the implementation would be impractical, but I will await clarification before making judgement.

[Uraniun235]

How the hell are you supposed to legislate for what people believe in? And from where do you take the right to do it, for that matter?

You make being a member of a given group illegal. Wasn't it done before with the Communist party?

Explicitly? No, I don't think membership in the Communist party was ever made a specific crime on the books in the United States. However, there were very many extra-legal consequences for being 'outed' as a Communist party member.

Now, there was a Socialist congressman in the early 20th century who was elected three consecutive times by his constituency, and it wasn't until the third time before Congress let him in. But that still isn't anywhere near "membership in this group is punishable by law".

I'd be really scared of laws banning "membership in a fundamentalist church", or something like that, because it sets a very disturbing precedent of being able to make associating with people who share your beliefs a crime. It wouldn't be too far from "being a member of a fundamentalist church is a crime" to "being a member of a radical political activist group is a crime". If you make it too specific, loopholes will be found and the law would become meaningless; too open-ended and it can be too readily abused.

[Superman]

We can't ban it anytime in the near future. Why? Because fundamentalism = stupid people, and stupid people outnumber the smart people by oh... I'd say 20:1.

[TimothyC]

NOTE: I don't want to get sucked into a debate here, I just want to make some points, and offer a Christian perspective in this thread.

Short answer - Any politician supporting this would be dead both politically and possibly literally (never underestimate the resolve of people to defend what the believe is right [Which some religious people have with Dawkins et. all.]).

My plan would be to construct a mental health act that penalizes any organization, church, mosque, whatever, with unhealthy antisocial teachings and actually inspires social division and mental problems.

Who gets to decide what fits these categories? I imagine that you would try to even get the church I go to banned (despite the fact that we are more evangelical than fundamentalist). While on the other had there are people who would get Atheist groups banned.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just shut down a church that's putting people at undue risk?

Again, who gets to decide what is 'undue risk'?

I'd be really scared of laws banning "membership in a fundamentalist church", or something like that, because it sets a very disturbing precedent of being able to make associating with people who share your beliefs a crime. It wouldn't be too far from "being a member of a fundamentalist church is a crime" to "being a member of a radical political activist group is a crime". If you make it too specific, loopholes will be found and the law would become meaningless; too open-ended and it can be too readily abused.

Exactly. If Rye wanted to ban the church I go to he'd never be able to pull it off because we have no distinct clergy (IE no population to target), and no major property (other than funds to help members out in emergencies which don't add up to much).

Also in These United States (yes I've taken to using the archaic name), it would never pass SCOTUS.

[Superman]

That's quite the slippery slope there, uranium.

[Brain_Caster]

So, in the meantime, people being programmed with stupid things that cause verifiable harm to society that could be dealt with by shutting down a church, and your solution is to let these things continue to happen but also set up an elaborate personal fining system with a ton of bureaucracy?

"Could be dealt with by shutting down a church"? Yeah sure. Tell me when has that ever worked? It didn't work for the roman emperors, it didn't work for communism, it's certainly not going to work for us.

More importantly, in order to try it we would first be forced to destroy values that also protect far better things than fundamentalism. Values like freedom of religion and human rights. Between one infidel and another: These values are what keeps us from being burned at the stake. Doing away with them is not a smart move.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just shut down a church that's putting people at undue risk?

It's not the curch that's putting those people at risk. It's those people themselves who are putting themselves at risk. It's not like they're being forced to join said church or follow it's commandments. If too many people are to stupid to think for themselves no amount of legislation is going to save you - that society is fucked anyway.

If they actually are being forced to follow a church's commandments... Well, if a church is able to do that it's probably because they succesfully did what you are trying to do - have the opposing way of thought legally banned.

Not very surprisingly, setting a precedent here is not a smart move either.

But fact is, I (or you) don't have a right to make them shut up by force or law.

So you oppose the storming of suicide cults, presumably?

I promote the idea that people have a right to make their own decisions.

It's called freedom of opinion, and the fact that their opinion is a pile of demented bullshit doesn't change that they have a right to express it. Or ruin their life with stupid decisions, if that's what they want.

Why not? Do you oppose seat belt laws too, even though their application verifiably saves lives? The freedom to the opinion is still there, they're just having verifiably harmful expression of those opinions banned.

The freedom of opinion is obviously no longer there if you make it illegal to express the opinion that seat belt laws should be revoked. Which is essentially what you're proposing.

Admittedly, it gets much more complicated if children who are to young to make their own decisions are involved. But what do you plan to do? Take them away from their parents? Excluding really extreme cases that's likely to do more damage than good and the legal possiblity to do so in specific less extreme cases could probably be abused in a thousand ways (and therefore will be abused).

Yeah, if a parent would let their kid die, they are not fit to be a parent, so I would advise taking the kid from that household. Do you disagree?

Obviously no. That's why I wrote "Excluding really extreme cases". If whatever ideological idiocity the parents are clinging to results in the childs certain death, I'm pretty sure we would call that extreme.

Why? Are they not individuals making their own moral judgments now? Why don't you propose a system where they could pay their victims or something as asinine?

Those are your words, not mine.
That it shouldn't be acceptable to preach violence is the one subject where I completely agree with you.

A fundamentalist church may dance around the issue of telling their followers that they should start killing sodomites, but all the time reinforce God's assertion that sodomites must be destroyed.

Ordering someone to attack someone is just an intention expressed and communicated between minds. The order itself does not cause the damage, neither does the concept, it's the actions based on it that are harmful. However, as a society, we can allocate blame to the source of the order and the person who acted on it, if a church exists in an area and is obviously inflaming tensions where none would exist before and making violence much more likely, a society shouldn't have a problem shutting it down.

An example, if I went into a mosque and demanded that all the guys in there kill a gay man outside, I could be arrested when I had next to no chance of influencing their behaviour to that end. If a preacher goes on and on about how God thinks gays are an abomination in a deeply religious area rife with "queer bashing" or whatever, aren't his words more likely to cause a gay man to get beaten up than mine?

I won't make any generalising statements here. Such cases have to be considered on a case by case basis.

What's next, fining people because they disagree with you? Because that's what you're proposing. The fact that you're right and they're wrong doesn't change this.

I meant the political movement to get creationism/ID/etc into schools. If it was a situation where a church was preaching segregation or white supremacy instead of creationism, lobbying those in power to change educational laws according to those doctrines, and actually getting some headway in ignorant areas, why shouldn't they be fined for persistently trying to pervert education?

Your still fining people because they disagree with you. By the same logic they could fine you because your promoting "atheistic immoral values" or something like that.

[Rye]

Well, obviously, this isn't practical. If Iraq has taught us anything, it has taught us that people are perfectly willing to kill themselves to further unhealthy antisocial teachings.

They're more willing to kill others because those teachings are allowed to flourish.

As far as the US is concerned, this would be practical if you could get thirty eight states to agree. Good luck with that.

I was thinking more for the UK and shutting down wahabbist mosques and scientologist churches.

Then there's the problems in any implementation of this proposal, regardless of public opposition to it. These are the criteria you've put forth. To be banned, an organization would have to have teachings which are:

1) Unhealthy
2) Antisocial

And which inspire

3) Social divisions
4) Mental health problems

1 is the most doable, although defining "unhealthy" is not trivial. For instance, the use of steroids, although it has obvious and severe side effects, can still better a person's life (for instance, by making them better at playing baseball). So how do we judge whether the damage done to a person's body by steroids outweighs the benefit that their body has derived from the use of steroids? Or, to make this directly relevant, how do we decide if an organization that promotes the use of steroids is in violation of your law?

Firstly, a company would have to be examined for who it was aiming its potentially dangerous advertising and claims at, e.g. kids would be out of the question. Secondly, it'd have to be tested for the kinds of techniques employed in that advertisement, peer pressure and similar oppressive sales techniques would be banned like they are currently under uk law.

2 we could implement if we could define what "antisocial" means. For instance, imagine a community in which there is widespread hatred and distrust of a minority. We could argue that advocating the destruction of the minority is antisocial because the minority is after all part of the society, and therefore advocating their destruction is inherently antisocial. Or we could argue that we must destroy the minority, because elimination of the minority will bring the society closer over all.

That seems pretty insane. It would be much more sound, ethically, to not kill people and neuter the sources of animosity (through multiple social means).

The same argument applies to 3, only more so. Imagine a society divided into two groups. We could try to enforce a law that would slowly blend the two groups until there was no practical division between them. Alternately, we could simply eliminate one of the two groups, thereby ending social divisions altogether (I realize of course that any real society has a huge number of divisions, I'm just using this example to illustrate the practical difficulty).

You wouldn't have to remove individuality and difference, just make things less likely to inflame and irritate.

Finally, we have the most problematic goal, 4) Mental health problems. The problem here is that it is very difficult to define what a "mental health problem" is. In the US, for instance, a sizeable portion of the population, possibly the majority, believe that atheism would constitute a "mental health problem".

But people live totally productive lives while being atheistic. Fundamentalist churches create addictions, depression, delusions and foster violent antisocial motives. It might be best to use actual science rather than popular opinion when judging whether a mental issue has a significant impact on how people live their lives.

Although we can certainly find some common ground about certain conditions or beliefs being mental health problems (schizophrenia, sociopathy, etc.), there will be widespread disagreement even among reasonable people regarding what mental health problems actually are.

I think if someone is ready to withhold from treatment due to some contrary notion of an invisible friend's preferences, they have crossed into dangerous territory, don't you?

I imagine that your proposal would become more practical if we had strict definitions of the criteria. I don't think it would, only because I think any precise definition would piss off enough people so that the implementation would be impractical, but I will await clarification before making judgement.

I thought it would be pretty clear automatically that some theistic beliefs are worse for society than others. Lethality is the obvious starting point, if all faiths were as innocuous as the anglican one, for instance, I wouldn't give a shit.

[Rye]

"Could be dealt with by shutting down a church"? Yeah sure. Tell me when has that ever worked? It didn't work for the roman emperors, it didn't work for communism, it's certainly not going to work for us.

Didn't the Russian government do precisely that because the JWs were causing such problems in Moscow, ripping families apart and such? France is highly secular due to the enlightenment and the assaults on the church, both legal and philosophical, as is much of the modern world.

More importantly, in order to try it we would first be forced to destroy values that also protect far better things than fundamentalism.

This is bullshit, and I'll prove it below.

Values like freedom of religion and human rights. Between one infidel and another: These values are what keeps us from being burned at the stake. Doing away with them is not a smart move.

This is inaccurate as situations like the Branch Davidians and religions like voodoo that demand animal sacrifice show. Suicide cults and animal cruelty are stopped by governments in religious institutions, and this is rightly so. Likewise, other ethical issues should be addressed under the same precedent.

It's not the curch that's putting those people at risk. It's those people themselves who are putting themselves at risk. It's not like they're being forced to join said church or follow it's commandments. If too many people are to stupid to think for themselves no amount of legislation is going to save you - that society is fucked anyway.

Bullshit. If they can't think for themselves, the society is no more fucked than the person doing the thinking for that herd. If that person is limited to spreading messages that aren't demonstrably bad for society, the unthinking herd should not automatically do bad things "just because."

If they actually are being forced to follow a church's commandments... Well, if a church is able to do that it's probably because they succesfully did what you are trying to do - have the opposing way of thought legally banned.

Uh, sure.

Not very surprisingly, setting a precedent here is not a smart move either.

The precedent already exists and society hasn't fallen apart yet.

I promote the idea that people have a right to make their own decisions.

It was a simple yes or no answer, this reads like you do oppose governmental intervention in suicide cults. Is this the case? Yes or no?

The freedom of opinion is obviously no longer there if you make it illegal to express the opinion that seat belt laws should be revoked.

That shouldn't be illegal.

Which is essentially what you're proposing.

No, it's not. I am proposing that an officially recognised by the state church should not subvert the society it lives in.

Obviously no. That's why I wrote "Excluding really extreme cases". If whatever ideological idiocity the parents are clinging to results in the childs certain death, I'm pretty sure we would call that extreme.

So what about the threat of torture? Is that a sign of a good parent? What if said threat can be linked to a specific social movement? Shouldn't that movement be banned from running schools or interacting with children?

Those are your words, not mine.
That it shouldn't be acceptable to preach violence is the one subject where I completely agree with you.

It's hypocritical, though. If you get more violence down to indirect bile, animosity and bigotry instead of direct orders, why should the direct orders be the only items the law should discriminate against?

I won't make any generalising statements here. Such cases have to be considered on a case by case basis.

It's a hypothetical situation, so address the specific case.

[Darth Servo]

We can't ban it anytime in the near future. Why? Because fundamentalism = stupid people, and stupid people outnumber the smart people by oh... I'd say 20:1.

And unfortunately, stupid people tend to OUT BREED smart people too.

[LadyTevar]

We can't ban it anytime in the near future. Why? Because fundamentalism = stupid people, and stupid people outnumber the smart people by oh... I'd say 20:1.

And unfortunately, stupid people tend to OUT BREED smart people too.

Thats' because we know how to use condoms

There's no way laws like this will work. The only way to move away from YEC and other Fundie beliefs is for there to be a change inside the churches themselves. Take a look at my home church; half the deacons walked out and are building a new church. Gotta love Baptists... we'll schism over these things (or less).

[Psychodelica]

The only way of ideologically ban fundamentalism is to stop being fundamentally liberal.

Being a hardcore social liberal (NOT libertarian, mind you)I believe in a total freedom of both thinking and speech (except when that freedom intrudes on the personal freedom of someone else), no matter how wrong, stupid or just half witted these opinions are.

[skotos]

They're more willing to kill others because those teachings are allowed to flourish.

I agree. All I'm saying is, these people exist today. Further, these people are willing to kill you (or your enforcers) if you outlaw these beliefs. That makes the implemenation of your proposal impractical, which if I recall correctly was what you were asking about.

I was thinking more for the UK and shutting down wahabbist mosques and scientologist churches.

I apologize. I thought you were thinking in US terms (and in any case, being American myself, that was an area I could comment on). As I'm sure you know, this is a very international board, and incorrect assumptions about the main nationality concerned are inevitable.

In any case, I know almost nothing about UK law or the attempts to shut down wahabbist mosques or scientologist churches, so I won't comment on that.

Firstly, a company would have to be examined for who it was aiming its potentially dangerous advertising and claims at, e.g. kids would be out of the question. Secondly, it'd have to be tested for the kinds of techniques employed in that advertisement, peer pressure and similar oppressive sales techniques would be banned like they are currently under uk law.

I'm unclear about what your responding to here. Maybe I was unclear, in the OP you suggested that any organization that promoted "unhealthy" practices should be banned by law. I responded by saying that the definition of "unhealthy" is unclear, some substances provide some clear health benefits while also having severe sideffects.

I agree with everything you've said in your response regarding advertising, I just don't see what it has to do with banning organizations which promote unhealthy activities. To my mind, "unhealthy" vs. "healthy" is a silly distinction, as long as organizations are honest about the health effects of their products, they should be allowed to sell them to whomever is willing to accept the good effects at the cost of having to accept the bad.

That seems pretty insane. It would be much more sound, ethically, to not kill people and neuter the sources of animosity (through multiple social means).

Emphasis added.

For the vast majority of human history, the answer to social tension and divisions has been to eliminate or exploit the source of those divisions. I'm not sure what you mean by "ethically" in this context, but I fail to see any obvious reason why attempts to neuter the source of animosity is a more ethical solution than simply eliminating the cause. Eliminating animosity will take decades and cost a huge amount of money in enforecement/education efforts. Simply eliminating the source of the animosity (by killing/enslaving/whatever) will cost quite a bit of money, but much less than making everyone like one another. One could argue that wiping out a minority is unethical, but I see no objective way to decide between the greater cost of resources required by forced acceptance vs. not fucking over the minority. My point is, the goals you specified in the original post would allow for either solution, which I don't think is what you had in mind.

Please note all, I am in no way advocating the liquidation of any minority, merely pointing out that not only is it a possible solution to achieving the goals of the original post, it might be the most effective one.

But people live totally productive lives while being atheistic.

And people live totally productive lives while being fundamentalist. People also live amazingly self-destructive lives while being atheistic (people also live amazingly self-destructive lives while being fundamentalist).

For that matter, people live totally productive lives while being schizophrenic, although for them it is much more difficult. Nevertheless, the productivity of a life that somebody can lead seems like a poor criteria for deciding whether or not a condition is a mental health problem.

It might be best to use actual science rather than popular opinion when judging whether a mental issue has a significant impact on how people live their lives.

I agree completely. The problem is, if we are going to outlaw something based on how it impacts peoples lives, we have to make a judgement call on which ways are better than others.

For instance, take the many fundamentalist programs that try to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. These programs obviously have a huge impact on peoples lives, they are designed to, after all. But the fact that they do in no way tells us whether or not they are causing "mental health problems". In their minds, being gay is a mental health problem, and they are helping to solve a crisis in mental health. In my mind (and, I'm guessing, yours), some of them are fucked up (the ones that cater to adults) and some of them are evil (the ones that handle teens). My point is, the different situations that constitute "mental health problems" vary from group to group.

Earlier in your post (that I didn't reply to, because I agree largely with it), you mentioned how fundamentalists encourage addiction. Perhaps they do, but if so then that is an example of a mental health problem which you percieve but they do not. Likewise, homosexuality (or atheism) is a mental health problem in their minds but not yours. Defining what exactly constitutes a mental health problem is not trivial.

[Rye]

They're more willing to kill others because those teachings are allowed to flourish.

I agree. All I'm saying is, these people exist today. Further, these people are willing to kill you (or your enforcers) if you outlaw these beliefs. That makes the implemenation of your proposal impractical, which if I recall correctly was what you were asking about.

Of course it would be impractical in one large step, of course, that doesn't mean that a more gradual social change couldn't take place until we have a better society.

In any case, I know almost nothing about UK law or the attempts to shut down wahabbist mosques or scientologist churches, so I won't comment on that.

The finsbury park mosque was shut down I believe, and Abu Hamza was deported or extradited to the US for his vocal support of the killings of unbelievers and potential terror connections, the mosque was then handed over to mainstream muslims.

I'm unclear about what your responding to here. Maybe I was unclear, in the OP you suggested that any organization that promoted "unhealthy" practices should be banned by law. I responded by saying that the definition of "unhealthy" is unclear, some substances provide some clear health benefits while also having severe sideffects.

I agree with everything you've said in your response regarding advertising, I just don't see what it has to do with banning organizations which promote unhealthy activities. To my mind, "unhealthy" vs. "healthy" is a silly distinction, as long as organizations are honest about the health effects of their products, they should be allowed to sell them to whomever is willing to accept the good effects at the cost of having to accept the bad.

What church on Earth is honest about the bad shit they do/cause? A church of scientology won't say "oh yeah, we will hound you forever, you might end up dead and cut off from your family" and nor will a catholic church say "you're more likely to get AIDS if you don't use condoms" or "you're more likely to get prostate cancer if you give up masturbation" when they bring all that nonsense up.

For the vast majority of human history, the answer to social tension and divisions has been to eliminate or exploit the source of those divisions.

So? The majority of human history is shit.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ethically" in this context, but I fail to see any obvious reason why attempts to neuter the source of animosity is a more ethical solution than simply eliminating the cause.

Hahah, you don't see why killing people or forcing them to absolutely conform is worse than making people more open to alternative ways of living life?

Eliminating animosity will take decades and cost a huge amount of money in enforecement/education efforts. Simply eliminating the source of the animosity (by killing/enslaving/whatever) will cost quite a bit of money, but much less than making everyone like one another.

So? Ethics isn't determined by efficiency with money or effort.

One could argue that wiping out a minority is unethical, but I see no objective way to decide between the greater cost of resources required by forced acceptance vs. not fucking over the minority.

My point is, the goals you specified in the original post would allow for either solution, which I don't think is what you had in mind.

Dude, if you think my proposals allow for death camps for christians and muslims, you really REALLY need to start not being fucking insane.

Please note all, I am in no way advocating the liquidation of any minority, merely pointing out that not only is it a possible solution to achieving the goals of the original post, it might be the most effective one.

Again, it is fucking stupid and NOT AT ALL what I was proposing, as well you know. Mass killing of annoying minorities is so far out there any sensible person would've automatically written it off as nonsensical.

And people live totally productive lives while being fundamentalist. People also live amazingly self-destructive lives while being atheistic (people also live amazingly self-destructive lives while being fundamentalist).

So? Atheism doesn't tell you to do anything, whereas fundamentalism does. Fundamentalism is not benign and coincidental to unpleasant, antisocial beliefs the majority of the time, since it is an extremely constricting, controlling lifestyle. Atheism cannot claim that.

For that matter, people live totally productive lives while being schizophrenic, although for them it is much more difficult. Nevertheless, the productivity of a life that somebody can lead seems like a poor criteria for deciding whether or not a condition is a mental health problem.

No, it isn't. That's the whole fucking point of what constitutes a "problem" be it medical, mental or hell, even mechanical.

I agree completely. The problem is, if we are going to outlaw something based on how it impacts peoples lives, we have to make a judgement call on which ways are better than others.

For instance, take the many fundamentalist programs that try to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. These programs obviously have a huge impact on peoples lives, they are designed to, after all. But the fact that they do in no way tells us whether or not they are causing "mental health problems".

Right, denial and anti-sexual brainwashing, coercion and soforth all has negligible mental impact? We wouldn't allow people like that to sell timeshares, why should we let them sell God like that?

In their minds, being gay is a mental health problem, and they are helping to solve a crisis in mental health.

They are not mental health professionals, they are fucking fascist lunatics, nothing more.

In my mind (and, I'm guessing, yours), some of them are fucked up (the ones that cater to adults) and some of them are evil (the ones that handle teens). My point is, the different situations that constitute "mental health problems" vary from group to group.

SO WHAT? Unless you think all groups are equal, this is fucking irrelevent!

Earlier in your post (that I didn't reply to, because I agree largely with it), you mentioned how fundamentalists encourage addiction. Perhaps they do, but if so then that is an example of a mental health problem which you percieve but they do not.

Ah well, I guess if there's habitual drug users that don't recognise their addiction, that must mean that there's no true way of discerning drug problems, after all, ability to function well in life has nothing to do with it, right?

Likewise, homosexuality (or atheism) is a mental health problem in their minds but not yours. Defining what exactly constitutes a mental health problem is not trivial.

It is more trivial than you give it credit for, when your only examples of mental health professionals that wouldn't agree with me are people that take their moral values from bronze age myth and peer pressure.

[Uraniun235]

That's quite the slippery slope there, uranium.

I'm not saying that it would happen, but that the legal precedent for it being possible would have been established. The consequences of writing and passing a new law often have the potential to go beyond the scope and intent of the authors of that law.

Further, it does not seem to me at all unreasonable to be gravely concerned about taking great care in expanding the legal powers of the government when the current administration is finding ways to abuse powers it should not even have in the first place.

I'm not saying that "ban membership in a fundamentalist church" is a bad idea in and of itself, I'm simply concerned that implementing it in a way which didn't backfire or fizzle would be exceedingly difficult.

[Spyder]

In agreement with Superman, assuming we're talking about religious fundamentalism, banning it wouldn't do any good as fundamentalism itself is a symptom of deeper social problems. If you get the churches out of America I guarantee that America itself would become the next deity and no, that wouldn't be a good thing.

Just keep pumping out the education and any other forces that erode ignorance and fundamentalism will continue to decrease.

[skotos]

<snip>Everything Rye wrote</snip>

Rye, I think you have the impression that I thought that you were advocating prison camps or mass murder for fundamentalists. I don't think anything of the kind.

Let's look at the question from the OP:

So, my question is pretty straightforward, could we ban it? My plan would be to construct a mental health act that penalises any organisation, church, mosque, whatever, with unhealthy antisocial teachings and actually inspires social division and mental problems.

My entire point is, reasonable people will disagree with whether or not a given teaching is "unhealthy", "antisocial", or "inspires social division and mental problems".

Take one of the examples I used, namely genocide. Normally, we would think that advocating genocide would constitute an "antisocial teaching" or would "inspire social division". I was trying to point out that genocide can be "prosocial" (for lack of a better word) and can actually end social division. So, would advocating genocide under your law be legal or illegal. One could equally argue that arguing against genocide would break your proposed law, which I'm sure was not your intent. Likewise, it could be used to argue that people who advocate steroid use should be penalized, or people who discourage steroid use should be locked up.

On to more specific responses:

Of course it would be impractical in one large step, of course, that doesn't mean that a more gradual social change couldn't take place until we have a better society.

True, but you asked about enacting an act to bring this about. That would seem to constitute "one large step".

What church on Earth is honest about the bad shit they do/cause?

How is this relevant? Nothing in the OP had anything to do with honesty. If you had asked about passing an act that banned churches, etc. for being dishonest, I'm sure I would have responded differently.

So? The majority of human history is shit.

I'd love to see you prove it, in the scientific sense (as opposed to the mathematic or logical sense, in which given the commonly used axioms for morality you are correct). For much of human history, genocide and other forms of oppression were an accepted means of ending social tension, which the act you proposed calls for. In other words, for most of human history your act would require the advocacy of genocide, at least in some cases.

Hahah, you don't see why killing people or forcing them to absolutely conform is worse than making people more open to alternative ways of living life?

Of course I do, but that is not what you asked about. According to what you proposed in the OP, killing people or otherwise subjugating them would be at least as good as making people open to alternative ways of living life.

So? Ethics isn't determined by efficiency with money or effort.

Really? So if the government has two means of accomplishing the same goal, and if one of them is more efficient than the other, the government isn't ethically bound to opt for the more efficient option?

Again, it is fucking stupid and NOT AT ALL what I was proposing, as well you know.

In point of fact, it was exactly what you were proposing, in some circumstances. In many cases, genocide is the most effective means of ending social division.

Look, I know, and knew from the start, that this wasn't really what you intended in the OP. That is why, in my first response to your post, I suggested that you rephrase the terms of your proposed act, to avoid these problems.

I'll concede the stuff about mental health problems. I'm sure we could argue to death over various points, but none of them really have to do with the main point of my response. I should have conceded them earlier.