Should Governments Ban Cults?
73 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag
I pose this question to the Gulch as there is a widespread debate in another online I currently belong to. I will clarify, what I mean by Cult is a religious movement that has a great deal of influence and power over their members, often to the detriment of the member's mental and physical well being. Members will refuse certain medical treatments for themselves and their children which could lead to unnecessary death for example. There are laws against murder, but what about cults that drive people to suicide by manipulation? I'm curious as to what Gulch members have to say about this...
Life saving is a BS excuse. If the individual wants to die its his/her choice. If a person has the responsibility of making choices for another, its that person choice on how to proceed (eg. a minor, someone on life support). It 's not anyone's place to make that choice for another.
Is it your right to tell a parent what they must do for their own child? On what basis to you validate your intrusion?
That is the entirety of the issue at hand. The individual is paramount. A dependent child (below 18) is the parents responsibility. The parent has the sole responsibility to do what in the best interest of their child as they see fit. If the parent exercises their right as a parent and the child comes to harm they are negligent and can be brought up on charges. That's the role of society in the relationship.
Society has no legitimate place in the discussion, but it does anyway.
Unfortunately, this is currently not the case in the examples I have found, but I agree that it should be.
Case in point, a Minnesota family was told that their son was too rambunctious and should take prescription drugs for ADHD... he was an A student and otherwise well behaved...they refused and the child was taken away.
Now it will cost them millions to fight the deep state to get him back.
I'm sure the state deems the parents members of an anti science/medicine/ADHD cult.
You know how some can take things toooooo far with an enormous amount of stupidity on both sides of this issue; so there must be clear guidelines. Blood for the bleeding...you betcha, chemo for cancer? No.
By definition, Freemasonry, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, The Bohemian club, Global Warming advocates, The Deep State or Shadow Governments would be examples of cults that are occulted.
Just to confuse things some more...laughing.
or a different view
the terms “occult” and “cult” refer to completely different things—although there can be crossover in some specific instances. That is, some cults have occultic practices.
The following practices are considered to be occultic:
(partial list, in alphabetical order)
◾Automatic speaking (through spirits)
◾Automatic writing (spirit-guided)
◾Calling up the dead
◾Celtics (the religion, not the Celtic “race”)
◾Demon worship and consultation
◾La Regla Lucumi
◾Magic, magick (magical arts)
◾Ordo Templi Orientis
◾Spells (casting, conjuring)
◾Tea cup reading
I would add: "Man made climate change", racism, sexism, hate speech, transgenderism and other things I haven't thought of yet.
[Hate speech, because, hate is physical, not speech].
Our first baby had tachypnea when he was born. He wasn't breathing right, resulting in very low oxygen in his blood. They put him in incubator with increased O2 levels and slowly reduced the O2 levels to normal air over a period of hours. It worked. He has no health problems now except he needs an inhaler when gets a cold. Given the evidence we have, it would have been a crime to deny my baby that simple O2 treatment.
The way to put a stop to harm by cults (such as holding people prisoner) is to enforce existing laws against those specific harmful acts.
On issues of accidental harm "caused" without initiating force (such as the examples someone posted of medical neglect by parents, or a child's suicide after being shunned) I believe it would do much more harm than good to allow government to prosecute anybody. But a lawsuit might very well be called for. If there is legal liability in such cases, each individual should be held responsible for his own actions. No blaming the cult or its leadership for your own behavior unless they threatened you with serious consequences (let the courts determine exactly what that phrase means).
As far as the broader question of the law limiting how a parent may treat his children -- I lean toward non-intervention up to the point where visible injury (severe bruising or loss of blood) takes place. However, if a teenager insists on running away from home and is willing to work to support himself, I would have the law allow it and not compel him to go back.
Based on historical evidence to date, I'd say the cult of people who voted for Obama is much more dangerous than Scientology.
"enforce existing laws"
"No blaming the cult or its leadership for your own behavior"
"if a teenager insists on running away from home and is willing to work to support himself, I would have the law allow it and not compel him to go back."
I agree wholeheartedly with all of this, not just the parts I quoted.
There are laws covering situations where someone is sexually exploited after their free will being attacked chemically, by drugs covertly added to their drinks. However, there seem to be no laws covering situations where people's free will is attacked psychologically through various manipulations.
I can't see any progress getting made on this front, because it would open a can of worms for action against marketers using psychological manipulations to get people to buy their products.
Followers of a belief system that demands no funds certainly avoid the restrictions of a corporate body, but I don't think you'll find any organized religion that doesn't squeeze money out of its followers, directly or indirectly. Of course the individuals of such a religion could still be held legally accountable for criminal acts.
I believe that an example is in order. There is a Fundamentalist Christian group in some rural parts of America that practice snake handling. As moronic as I find this, if an adult wishes to give this a try, have at it. I would think that this would be a good place for the Government to say that No one under the age of majority is allow to give this a try, as I certainly believe it is reasonable to protect children from snake bite.
The hypothetical is very similar to another I saw in the news recently: that of a straight college student who committed suicide because a gay college student (in league with an administrator) got the student banned from class and threatened his impending graduation. Should the gay student (and the administrative accomplice) be charged with any responsibility?
I learned of Rand's and other Objectivists' works in the mid 1960s, but have never been a joiner, so I never sought out fellow travelers. Despite the actions of Rand's group, I still like many of their ideas, but do not like the ARI's closed Objectivism because that would make it something like a religion.
What "medical treatments" for children are you talking about? I know a great deal about such things. Dedicated over a decade to study it in great depth and am still working in it. When you mix government, children and "medical treatments" in a statement my ears perk up. I no longer publicly discuss what I know on this...
20 years ago the FBI and BATF decided a group in WACO was a "cult" (which is a biased weasel word connotation of the word "culture." )
Then the FBI burned about 90 of them to death with no evidence against them, which simultaneously destroyed evidence, if any existed, that could have proven them innocent (and possibly sent the BATF and FBI agents involved to the electric chair for murder.)
Federal government should keep its meddling, murdering nose out of the homes of people, and has zero authority under the constitution to do anything whatsoever about so-called "cults."
Could Galt's Gulch online considered a cult?
I know several other families who like an idea I've been kicking around for a while now. We'd buy some acreage, build several homes on it around our own little school building. We'd homeschool our kids on our property, raise some chickens, have a pool, etc. But, it'd be close enough to town that we could still keep our jobs. Great idea, right? Until somebody says it's a cult or some other damned thing. There'd be zero religion, just the love of having better control of how our kids are educated. The possible gov power being discussed here is not good juju...
If the gov't did pass a law just aimed at cults, it would most likely grant some special new powers to the gov't, supposedly specially geared toward this problem. Within 10 years, probably way less, those powers would be used in all types of cases having nothing to do with cults.
Could loose interpretation eventually made objectivism a crime? " Taxation is theft' making refusal to pay the responsibility of the group?
I agree with AJ, Snoogoo, and Olduglycarl that cults are not clearly definable and there should not be laws focused on cults. That's why I said people could be prosecuted under existing laws.
Even if a "cult" were a clearly definable problem, anti-cult powers would quickly expand beyond their original purpose, like the PATRIOT Act and RICO Act.
Occultation in astrophysics is likened to an eclipse. Blocking the view between two objects could be considered hiding or blocking the truth.
What we consider an occult and what others consider an occult could be quite different.
Meaning: secret, obtuse, hidden, mysterious, concealed.
By that definition, Freemasonry, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, The Bohemian club, Global Warming advocates, The Deep State or Shadow Governments would be examples of an Occult.
That's maybe the strongest point among all these good reasons not to have special laws against cults. If you prosecute them under the same laws we all live by, e.g. child abuse, conspiracy to commit murder, it's harder for them to present themselves as persecuted victims.
What if I told you that there are children out there who have been diagnosed with cancer but don't have it? You may not want to believe that. But, think about it in context of your point. I personally know a family that almost had their 2-year old daughter taken over chemo for a cancer she didn't have. It was a misdiagnosis. But...I'm sure they are the only people who've had an incorrect diagnosis...
There's a continuum between a flu vaccine for kids and some well-tolerated treatment for fetal disease. In the case of parents who deny their kids a proven treatment for a proven fetal disease, I think someone should use force to save those kids. There must be a way to do that without going down the slippery slope toward gov't forcing kids to get things like vaccines or vitamins.
It reminds me of when I had appendicitis at age 9. The doctors believed my life was in danger. My father hired a surgeon with a long history of doing appendectomies successfully who charged more than the insurance company guidelines. I recovered with no complications. I knew those facts, but I didn't really understand until I got older that I was lucky my parents got me high-quality care. If they had just taken no action when the evidence said my life was in danger, I would consider that criminal. Even if it turns out the doctors were wrong, to the best of our knowledge at the time, my life was in immediate danger from something easily treatable. To me this is on the spectrum of neglect, like denying children food.
You argue for force. I argue for not using force. Simple enough.
I don't see it has an argument either way. It's just part of my experience with children and medicine. It's certainly simple not to intervene. I clearly see that. I just think intervening to save a child is right.