There are many organisations preying on the young, old and vunerable and it appears that they are acting within the law, despite their questionable ethics and practises. Under the guise of religious freedom, they enslave the minds of the unwitting. Should the law be changed ? What do you suggest ?

Absolutely not. We must protect freedom, which includes an ugly side. Whether we like it or not, it is a *choice* to participate in any group, including cult groups. We need to use education to warn people of the dangers, education to see the signs in each other and ourselves, and education to help people leave dangerous groups. It sounds nice to try to limit cruel or evil people's power, but you are also limiting individual freedom and choice, which is not a path I am comfortable with.

BUT you are also depriving children of choice, the fundamental human rights of education and in many cults medical treatment which has caused many avoidable deaths. Children are just little humans you know - who is defending their right to choice?

If someone's religious belief was that children should be subjected to sexual 'enlightenment' by adults (abuse) or that women should be nothing more than slaves to their husbands or are just to be used for sex by whoever wants it, people should be prevented from leaving 'for their own good' or hypnotised and subject to mind control under the guise of counselling or meditation would you be less comfortable with the lack of freedom in that? There are cults that do all of these things.

In my way of thinking it is an very simplistic reasoning to shield cults under the banner of freedom . People have much less issue with telling people what they can do with their own bodies, with laws against drug use and consensual homosexual sex and prostitution when it is obvious who owns the bodies involved, but you can do whatever you like with your mind and the bodies of innocent children :?

BUT there are already laws against rape (regardless of age) and having sex with minors. Your original post declared that the groups are acting within the law, but the law doesn't allow the sexual behaviors described in your second post.

Also consider the damage mainstream religions do to children. You can easily find large numbers of adults who will describe themselves as "recovering Catholics," "recovering Baptists," "recovering [insert any religion here]" or adults who hold tremendous amounts of guilt due to their religion. So if you really want to start legislating harmful groups, it wouldn't just be cults that would get shut down.

Laws limiting behavior are automatically contradictory to freedom. Many laws help promote freedom, but notice they don't limit behaviors, the only allow behaviors.

Quote
skippypb
BUT there are already laws against rape (regardless of age) and having sex with minors. Your original post declared that the groups are acting within the law, but the law doesn't allow the sexual behaviors described in your second post.

The reason those two posts are not consistent is that they come from two different people. kultbuster and cultreporter may appear a little similar but are entirely different users.

Also consider the damage mainstream religions do to children. You can easily find large numbers of adults who will describe themselves as "recovering Catholics," "recovering Baptists," "recovering [insert any religion here]" or adults who hold tremendous amounts of guilt due to their religion. So if you really want to start legislating harmful groups, it wouldn't just be cults that would get shut down.

Quote

Laws limiting behavior are automatically contradictory to freedom. Many laws help promote freedom, but notice they don't limit behaviors, the only allow behaviors.

Which is exactly what I stated in my previous post and I asked you do you support laws that while they afford freedom to some impose on the freedom of others. Now let me just say I am a woman, I am not a lesbian, I do not use illegal drugs, I am not a prostitute and personally I do not agree with abortion. These are all issues where the freedom card is commonly played.

Your statement that many laws promote freedom, but notice they don't limit behaviours they only allow behaviours is easily and simply disproven. With the exception of abortion the only person who is effected by drug use, consensual homosexual sex and prostitution is the individual. In each case we have a person utilising their body as they see fit. To legislate against this is to make a definitive statement that the individual has no right to decide how they wish to utilise their own body. If my body is not mine then who does it belong to? Ironically abortion where it is legal which is the only thing that effects a non consensual person is justified with the rationale that a woman should have control of her own body. Then we have the strangeness of the law that it is illegal to commit suicide (although how you would be punished if you did is a ridiculous concept making such laws redundant). Again one does not own their body.

Now I am aware that on these above issues that there are various arguments that drug use leads to crime etc, but the main objection to homosexuality and prostitution and suicide is a moral judgement imposed by law makers who are predominantly christian. This does not respect the individual freedom that your position claims to represent.

What I actually stated to you in my initial post was that you advocate everyone being allowed to practice their religion, regardless of what it is, and that this is a fundamental component of a free society.

The question that I put to you was if a person's religion is that children should be sexually 'initiated' by adults do you support this? The foundation of your argument is that you would, and there is the slippery slope because I am certain that like the vast majority of humanity you find such behaviours abhorrant. Either you support freedom of religion though or you do not.

Shivites for example (followers of the Hindu deity Shiva) the second largest religion in India believe in smoking hashish as part of their spiritual practices. Now Shivites in America or Australia for example would not be permitted to do this because smoking hashish is illegal.

In some Hindu traditions it is considered appropriate according to spiritual beliefs to marry eight year old girls to 40 year old men.

In Scientology it is considered a necessary component of practicing and upholding their faith to abuse in any conceivable way those that speak against them or who are seen as betrayers.

In some cults animal sacrifice is considered to be an intregal part of their spiritual beliefs.

Jehovah's Witnesses seek the right to deny life saving blood transfusions for their minor children.

Some muslims believe that women are lesser human beings that should be treated as such subjected to beatings, murders or rapes if they forget 'their place' according to their religious beliefs.

The cult I was in called Science of Identity deprives children of going to school or having pharmaceutical medicine - even to the extent of children's panadol.

The freedom to practice religion which you refer to would endorse the above being permitted to act contrary to the existing law - but does your concept of freedom extend that far? If not then it is not actually freedom is it?

What we have is actually a situation as you point out where existing laws already prohibit religious practices, as so they should, but in many aspects existing laws are compromised by the blanket ideology of religious freedom.

There are for example many cases where people have been killed in exorcisms and those responsible have received little or no punishment. Now it is against the law to for example to tie someone to a chair, slap and kick them, pour boiling water down their throat and subject them to such treatment as to cause injuries to bring about their untimely demise. If someone did that just because they felt like it then they would be treated by the law as a disgusting murderer. If you call it a religious practice however the outcome (for the defendant, not the victim) is extremely different.

The book 'Killer Excuses' documents several cases that illustrate this point.

[www.bookshop.vic.gov.au]

This is another example of the outcome of the 'freedom even with an ugly side argument.'