Totalitarian sects: what should be done?

[K. A. Pital]

What should be done about totalitarian sects?

I guess most of you know about such sects or maybe even encountered them. Like Moonies (Rev. Moon followers), Scientologists, or "self-whippers" (a very old totalitarian sect in Russia; promotes self-beating to blood by a whip as means of enlightement and ultimate pleasure and obedience to God).

Personally, I see them all as a bunch of sick worthless pricks, so I subscribe to the first option, but I'm not voting. What's the public opinion on the matter?

[Aeolus]

What should be done about totalitarian sects?

I guess most of you know about such sects or maybe even encountered them. Like Moonies (Rev. Moon followers), Scientologists, or "self-whippers" (a very old totalitarian sect in Russia; promotes self-beating to blood by a whip as means of enlightement and ultimate pleasure and obedience to God).

Personally, I see them all as a bunch of sick worthless pricks, so I subscribe to the first option, but I'm not voting. What's the public opinion on the matter?

If members can be proved to be commiting criminal acts then they should be prosecured to the full extent of the law. However allowing whatever party happens to be in power to pick and choose what is or is not a harmful philosophy seems unwise.

[Aeolus]

ugh prosecuted.

[Covenant]

A scene from A Man For All Seasons comes to mind when discussingf this.

Roper: Arrest him!
More: For what?
Roper: He's dangerous!
More: Libel. He's a spy!
Roper: That man's bad!
More: There's no law against that.
Roper: God's law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Roper: While you talk, he's gone!
More: Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.
Roper: Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes, what would you do? Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you... where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted with laws from coast to coast... Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down..

and you're just the man to do it...

...do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then?

Roper: Yes.
More: I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

Unless they've done something criminal, the right to free association, free speech, and assembly are still their rights. To go after these people in a laws-be-damned style you need to realize that when the Right-Wingers take charge they'll do the same to gays, liberals, athiests, unions, etc. Do you really want Ann Coulter deciding who is or is not dangerous to your country?

Another good quote is "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself" by Jefferson which sums up nicely the issue. I don't want the government to have the power to come in and break me up unless I'm doing something criminal--their opinion that I'm dangerous should not supercede my rights. They're allowed to keep tabs and bust me when I do something bad, but until they they NEED to leave me alone. And if you take away the moron's rights to assemble at a Federal level, rather than deal with it on a local level in one of the many ways you're Consitutionally allowed to, then you're taking away mine too. There's better ways to handle 'em.

[Sofia]

What people choose to do to themselves is their own business. Cults should be routinely investigated for evidence of criminal activity, however, and the authorities should check up on each cult member alone. I'm not sure how one would go about it, and it might violate privacy laws, but the brainwashing potential of cults is too pernicious to ignore completely.

[wolveraptor]

The difficulty of this question is the following: at what point is a person so thoroughly indoctrinated that they can't be considered responsible for themselves? It is at that point that the cult transmogrifies from a harmless oddity to a societal menace.

[wolveraptor]

On the other hand, a cult that actively engages in harm to themselves (for example, self-laceration) could be considered the manifestation of a mental disease, and result in the immediately placement of the devotees into psychotherapy. We don't give people the freedom to cut themselves, so why should it be any different if in the context of religion?

[Superman]

It's a complicated call for the United States. Where do you draw the line between religion and psychological disorders?

Personally, I like Freud's stance that religion is very much like a childhood neurosis, and could even a labeled a spectrum disorder.

Sure Scientology is a crock, but it is Xenu any more rediculous than a talking snake or a man walking on water?

[wolveraptor]

I suppose they're considered tolerable as long as they stay harmless to the believer and those surrounding him. By that logic, xenophobic, insular fundamentalism is a mental disorder warranting some extrinsic intervention.

[Molyneux]

We don't give people the freedom to cut themselves

...We don't? That's news to me...

[SVPD]

I'd say it's a massive waste of time and effort for law enforcement to prosecute people merely for opinion, in addition to the concerns others metioned over rights of speech and assembly.

[wolveraptor]

We don't give people the freedom to cut themselves

...We don't? That's news to me...

Of course not. They're committed to therapy immediately, aren't they? If they self-injure, they aren't deemed mentally fit enough to refuse medical and psychological help.

[Xon]

What people choose to do to themselves is their own business.

It is in a very select few cases where what people do to themselves is just thier own business. In those cases it is purely if they are not a threat to others or impinge on others.

Since humanity is a social animal, there is very little we do which doesnt involve someone else. The real tightrope walking act is balancing the an indivdual's privilages and responsibilities with everyone elses.

I'm saying "privileges" because they are social conventions for the betterment of humanity as a group and on the individual bias. And if those privileges harm humanity as a group then some serious thinking needs to be done of why the hell those privileges are around.

[wolveraptor]

I'd say it's a massive waste of time and effort for law enforcement to prosecute people merely for opinion, in addition to the concerns others metioned over rights of speech and assembly.

When did anyone ever suggest "prosecuting people for their opinions"?

[K. A. Pital]

Heh. Interesting results there.

Well, personally I believe that if a certain sect is indocrinating people with such methods that they can barely be counted "sane" and "self-deciding" anymore, that's not "freedom of religion", but something else. Something that is rather dangerous.

Does anyone remember that UFO cult, 40 (?) members of which commited mass-suicide?

I believe, at the very least, such groups should be investigated. To prevent something like the above.

[Darth Raptor]

I'm feeling extra cynical today, but who cares? If someone is stupid enough to get roped into a Comet 'n' Koolaid cult maybe it's for the best that they're removed from the gene pool. I don't want the people in charge using abstract and intangible concepts when deciding if a doctrine is dangerous to the state. The best we can do is make sure proper education is available to people. If we do that and they still believe the Magic Unicorn thinks they're a bad boy and need to be spanked, I can't be arsed to give a fuck.

I draw the line when they start hurting other people. Self abuse is one thing, but anything beyond that and the state should intervene.

[K. A. Pital]

I draw the line when they start hurting other people. Self abuse is one thing, but anything beyond that and the state should intervene.

But how do you know they hurt other people before they actually do it? The Heaven's Gate cult could, for example, start a mass-murder of heathens instead of a mass-suicide. And you'd know nothing before it hit you.

[wolveraptor]

Since when do stupid people lack rights?

The best we can do is make sure proper education is available to people

Yes, we certainly do a great job of that. No doubt about it.

[Darth Raptor]

But how do you know they hurt other people before they actually do it? The Heaven's Gate cult could, for example, start a mass-murder of heathens instead of a mass-suicide. And you'd know nothing before it hit you.

The government should be aware of the nature of the cult and its doctrines and practices. If something like that began to surface than preemptive, preventative measures most certainly should be taken. A massacre would require weapons of some kind as well, and that would attract the attention of the constabulary.

But the fact stands that you can't stop people from privately assembling because you don't like what they're talking about.

Since when do stupid people lack rights?

They have rights. Specifically, the right to terminate one's life. How are you going to monitor and enforce standards on the wisdom of suicide? People should be able to kill themselves, regardless of whether they've had enough of the cancer or Xenu is coming to eat them.

Yes, we certainly do a great job of that. No doubt about it.

Wow, how... what's the word... "relevant"? No, wait, the opposite of that.

[K. A. Pital]

A massacre would require weapons of some kind as well, and that would attract the attention of the constabulary.

Indeed. But that would be noticed if they are monitored, at least. Even in a country where arms trade is restricted, there's a market of illegal arms. In a country where arms are sold freely, they're as free as a bird to do whatever they plan to. My point still stands, if you don't monitor cults, there could be massive negative consequences.

But the fact stands that you can't stop people from privately assembling because you don't like what they're talking about.

Even if they are talking about, say, turning the whole city into a great sacrifice to Kthulhu next month?

[Darth Raptor]

Indeed. But that would be noticed if they are monitored, at least. Even in a country where arms trade is restricted, there's a market of illegal arms. In a country where arms are sold freely, they're as free as a bird to do whatever they plan to. My point still stands, if you don't monitor cults, there could be massive negative consequences.

And where did I say they shouldn't be monitored? In fact I explicitly stated the opposite. There's a difference between placing religions on a "watch list" (I would do this to Christianity and Islam, nevermind Heaven's Gate) and banning them outright.

Even if they are talking about, say, turning the whole city into a great sacrifice to Kthulhu next month?

Again, I specifically stated that certain situations would require preemptive intervention. That's different from requiring all religions to be state-approved.