How much religious freedom is needed?

[CoraSpia]

So what is the distinction that you draw between two groups that are apparently harmful? Is it size? Length of establishment?

Size is not the distinction, but it is the most helpful indicator. The distinction is control. The smaller and more tightly knit the group is, the more likely it is that most or all of the group truly believes in whatever harmful ideology the group's leadership espouses, but even a large group can have widespread indoctrination to those ideas. I know from my experience talking to catholics that this is not the case with them.

I know a good few pagan groups which are very tight-knit and small, like what you describe. Very nice people. Dangerous cults?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Enough to practice it without harassment and not harass others.

Pretty much this.

[Belshekistan]

Because allowing proselytism runs directly counter to freedom of religion imo. It benefits proselytizing religions at the expense of atheists or non-proselytizing faiths.

Then that's a problem for non-proselytising faiths.

The point is that it can be addictive and destructive, especially with the more "out there" denominations such as pentecostalism or evangelism.

No that's literally not the point. The study that you are citing does not say that at all. You are lying.

I'm not saying that's the study's point, I'm saying that's my point.

[Salus Maior]

1. Why not? Not everybody objects to this. It isn't hard to just tell missionaries to go away.

Because allowing proselytism runs directly counter to freedom of religion imo. It benefits proselytizing religions at the expense of atheists or non-proselytizing faiths.

I mean, if the argument here is "people might convert if you tell other people about your religion" I feel like that's not a strong argument.

Especially from someone like you, who often proudly makes the point of how much your particular religion is growing in popularity.

[CoraSpia]

The point is that it can be addictive and destructive, especially with the more "out there" denominations such as pentecostalism or evangelism.

I think you mean evangelicalism. Which doesn't even have to be destructive. It can, like good music, just make your life better.

Or, like EDM, it can make you miserable. You only do either because you like it, or in the case of EDM because you have a musical taste malfunction.

[Salus Maior]

I'm not saying that's the study's point, I'm saying that's my point.

And considering you're not any kind of expert or professional in this field, and are clearly ideologically biased, your point is safely disregarded.

[Garkland]

If the world worked like you said cults wouldn't exist. people aren't stupid yes, but cults take advantage of the weak and vulnerable. This is how they are able to gain so many followers because they are attractive to those who are experiencing loss, are young, or just generally vulnerable. It's not people's fault that they want to follow the crowd, it's a natural instinct and a result of how our brain functions. Yes, some people have themselves to blame for joining cults, but a large majority are genuinely tricked and it's not their fault.

'Genuinely tricked?'
That's rather patronising, don't you think? You're suggesting that they were unable to make their own decisions and had no part in choosing to follow the religious nonsense that was being fed to them.

I reocmend that you learn why cults are so successful and then you, may understand why I think cult members are victims, not fools.
( Insider explains 3 reasons why people join cults, according to a cult-recovery therapist--- https://www.insider.com/why-people-join ... ors-2020-9)
( another website says 10 Things to Know About the Psychology of Cults which explains why cults are able to trick people so easily- https://www.onlinepsychologydegree.info ... -of-cults/)

[Old Tyrannia]

1. Why not? Not everybody objects to this. It isn't hard to just tell missionaries to go away.

Because allowing proselytism runs directly counter to freedom of religion imo. It benefits proselytizing religions at the expense of atheists or non-proselytizing faiths.

If people aren't allowed to publicly advocate for the correctness of their religious beliefs then they don't really have freedom of religion.

Additionally, faiths such as Christianity and Islam specifically command their followers to spread God's word. Banning proselytisation prevents Christians, Muslims and followers of other proselytising faiths from fulfilling their religious obligations.

[Anglicora]

Then that's a problem for non-proselytising faiths.


No that's literally not the point. The study that you are citing does not say that at all. You are lying.

I'm not saying that's the study's point, I'm saying that's my point.

Which is not supported by the evidence you cited. You got misled by a headline and now you're backtracking because you exposed the fact you never actually read the study.

[Belshekistan]

Size is not the distinction, but it is the most helpful indicator. The distinction is control. The smaller and more tightly knit the group is, the more likely it is that most or all of the group truly believes in whatever harmful ideology the group's leadership espouses, but even a large group can have widespread indoctrination to those ideas. I know from my experience talking to catholics that this is not the case with them.

I know a good few pagan groups which are very tight-knit and small, like what you describe. Very nice people. Dangerous cults?

I assume if they're very nice people, they don't do dangerous things like murder people in cold blood or command their members to kill themselves. It's not just being small and tight knit/high control or just dangerous ideology espoused by the leadership that makes a cult dangerous, it's a combination of both.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because allowing proselytism runs directly counter to freedom of religion imo. It benefits proselytizing religions at the expense of atheists or non-proselytizing faiths.

I mean, if the argument here is "people might convert if you tell other people about your religion" I feel like that's not a strong argument.

Especially from someone like you, who often proudly makes the point of how much your particular religion is growing in popularity.

Oh I have no problems with people converting to different faiths. Quite the opposite oftentimes it's a rather beautiful thing in a way I think. But rampant proselytism and a pluralistic multi-religious society don't really mesh well together, at least historically. If we're to have true freedom of religion then the old atheist line of freedom from religion also needs to exist in some capacity as well.

[Loeje]

I think you mean evangelicalism. Which doesn't even have to be destructive. It can, like good music, just make your life better.

Or, like EDM, it can make you miserable. You only do either because you like it, or in the case of EDM because you have a musical taste malfunction.

If EDM makes people happy, and I don't know if it does, then that can be a good thing too. Religion can make people miserable, but then it's not a problem with religion as a whole, or with that specific religion, but with the way it's practiced by certain people.

[Anglicora]

I mean, if the argument here is "people might convert if you tell other people about your religion" I feel like that's not a strong argument.

Especially from someone like you, who often proudly makes the point of how much your particular religion is growing in popularity.

Oh I have no problems with people converting to different faiths. Quite the opposite oftentimes it's a rather beautiful thing in a way I think. But rampant proselytism and a pluralistic multi-religious society don't really mesh well together, at least historically. If we're to have true freedom of religion then the old atheist line of freedom from religion also needs to exist in some capacity as well.

But proselytising doesn't necessarily infringe on this. Nobody is forcing them to convert or even listen. If a missionary comes to their door, they can say "thanks but no thanks" and shut the door on them. If they go in public and they hear street preachers, well so what? It's public space. They can shout about whatever they want too.

[Garkland]

Size is not the distinction, but it is the most helpful indicator. The distinction is control. The smaller and more tightly knit the group is, the more likely it is that most or all of the group truly believes in whatever harmful ideology the group's leadership espouses, but even a large group can have widespread indoctrination to those ideas. I know from my experience talking to catholics that this is not the case with them.

I know a good few pagan groups which are very tight-knit and small, like what you describe. Very nice people. Dangerous cults?

A cult in my definition is a group centered around a particular ideology or belief and maintains itself through a charismatic leader. Their lives are severely controlled and monitored in some way. Cults employ serval tricks including an answer to life's biggest questions, security, and companionship. Some can argue that early Christianity was a cult, however, it quickly became a part of society. Any religion can be detrimental and still not be a cult.

[Salus Maior]

I mean, if the argument here is "people might convert if you tell other people about your religion" I feel like that's not a strong argument.

Especially from someone like you, who often proudly makes the point of how much your particular religion is growing in popularity.

Oh I have no problems with people converting to different faiths. Quite the opposite oftentimes it's a rather beautiful thing in a way I think. But rampant proselytism and a pluralistic multi-religious society don't really mesh well together, at least historically. If we're to have true freedom of religion then the old atheist line of freedom from religion also needs to exist in some capacity as well.

I mean, people have freedom from religion in the sense that they can very freely say no to anyone, and have no association with a religious institution without consequence to that choice. Which, I do support. I think people should be able to live according to their conscience.

Which is also why I think people should be allowed to evangelize as well, if their conscience calls them to do that. The worst that can happen is that some people might convert if they agree with the evangelist. Who is that hurting?

[Page]

Children's bodily autonomy comes before their parents' religious rights. Banning genital mutilation on unconsenting babies (which they are AWAKE for and feel severe PAIN) is no worse than banning conversion therapy or letting your child die because you're a JW who doesn't believe in blood transfusions.

Further, a baby is not a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew (in religious terms, not ethnicity) or a Buddhist. Babies have no religion. You can't be part of a religion without the mental capacity for understanding it.

This is very explicitly not true in religious terms. Muslims believe all people are born Muslim as far as I know, which is why they call converts reverts.

Some Muslims making this claim doesn't make it so. Being a part of any kind of religion, ideology, or philosophy requires active assent.

[CoraSpia]

'Genuinely tricked?'
That's rather patronising, don't you think? You're suggesting that they were unable to make their own decisions and had no part in choosing to follow the religious nonsense that was being fed to them.

I reocmend that you learn why cults are so successful and then you, may understand why I think cult members are victims, not fools.
( Insider explains 3 reasons why people join cults, according to a cult-recovery therapist--- https://www.insider.com/why-people-join ... ors-2020-9)
( another website says 10 Things to Know About the Psychology of Cults which explains why cults are able to trick people so easily- https://www.onlinepsychologydegree.info ... -of-cults/)

So taking the one with only 3 reasons first:
1. They want to better themselves, either professionally or personally
Cults are marketed to people who want to better themselves, this is true. You know what I market to people who want to better themselves professionally? Custom web design. Wanting to better yourself as a reason means one thing to me: you made this decision. There was a thought process involved here and that was your reason. This applies both to cults and to custom web design, although custom web design is cheaper, to your exact specifications and delivered on time. Sex isn't included though and there's a very low enlightenment potential. I recommend shopping around when wishing to better yourself professionally.

2. They want a greater sense of community
I understand the very common use of loneliness to mean vulnerability, and for a minority of people that might hold true. Wanting a larger community however doesn't make you in some way vulnerable or less in control of your decisions, it just means that you want to get to know more people and probably that you prefer to meet more people in a more structured way. Personally I prefer zoom calls to cults if I want to meet people from all around the world, again far cheaper and the worst that the host will do to me is mute me when I get too drunk.

3. They're in a state of extreme vulnerability
Being apparently 'vulnerable' does not mean you are not in control of your decision-making processes. I could give so many reasons why I've made bad decisions throughout my life: you know what they're called? Excuses. If I'm a horrible person because I'm grieving or I'm ill, that is on me rather than the world around. Sure, if you leave a cult and feel that what happened to you during said cult was traumatic and something you need help with, that help should be something you can get. I don't think though that the poor actions of some people should deprive others of the right to make their own choices.

[Old Tyrannia]

Oh I have no problems with people converting to different faiths. Quite the opposite oftentimes it's a rather beautiful thing in a way I think. But rampant proselytism and a pluralistic multi-religious society don't really mesh well together, at least historically. If we're to have true freedom of religion then the old atheist line of freedom from religion also needs to exist in some capacity as well.

I mean, people have freedom from religion in the sense that they can very freely say no to anyone, and have no association with a religious institution without consequence to that choice. Which, I do support. I think people should be able to live according to their conscience.

Which is also why I think people should be allowed to evangelize as well, if their conscience calls them to do that. The worst that can happen is that some people might convert if they agree with the evangelist. Who is that hurting?

Well, if the evangelist doesn't belong to the right religion, the convert might end up in Hell. I've heard that hurts quite a lot

[Salus Maior]

This is very explicitly not true in religious terms. Muslims believe all people are born Muslim as far as I know, which is why they call converts reverts.

Some Muslims making this claim doesn't make it so. Being a part of any kind of religion, ideology, or philosophy requires active assent.

That's not really true of ethnic religion.

[CoraSpia]

I know a good few pagan groups which are very tight-knit and small, like what you describe. Very nice people. Dangerous cults?

I assume if they're very nice people, they don't do dangerous things like murder people in cold blood or command their members to kill themselves. It's not just being small and tight knit/high control or just dangerous ideology espoused by the leadership that makes a cult dangerous, it's a combination of both.

So then we come down to what I've been saying. The actions of the cult, in commanding their members to kill themselves/others, are what should be punished here. The cult itself should not be and people should be given the choice of what religious organisations they wish to associate with.

[Salus Maior]

Well, if the evangelist doesn't belong to the right religion, the convert might end up in Hell. I've heard that hurts quite a lot

Well, that's a separate matter entirely

[CoraSpia]

Some Muslims making this claim doesn't make it so. Being a part of any kind of religion, ideology, or philosophy requires active assent.

That's not really true of ethnic religion.

Kind of is. You could be born to a jewish family but if you know nothing about the religion (like babies do not) you can hardly be considered part of that religion and to have consented to its edicts. It's the same reason that some Christian groups practice adult baptism.

[Old Tyrannia]

This is very explicitly not true in religious terms. Muslims believe all people are born Muslim as far as I know, which is why they call converts reverts.

Some Muslims making this claim doesn't make it so. Being a part of any kind of religion, ideology, or philosophy requires active assent.

That's an assumption based on your own secular worldview, which highlights one of the fundamental issues with a secular state; secularists claim that a secular state is in essence value-neutral, not enforcing any particular value system on its citizens, but this is not the case in reality. A secular state will still legislate based on a particular system of values, and in doing so impose those values on its citizens whether they share them or not. Secular states are in this sense no different from confessional states and have no moral high ground over them regardless of what secularists may claim.

[Salus Maior]

I know a good few pagan groups which are very tight-knit and small, like what you describe. Very nice people. Dangerous cults?

A cult in my definition is a group centered around a particular ideology or belief and maintains itself through a charismatic leader. Their lives are severely controlled and monitored in some way. Cults employ serval tricks including an answer to life's biggest questions, security, and companionship. Some can argue that early Christianity was a cult, however, it quickly became a part of society. Any religion can be detrimental and still not be a cult.

I wouldn't say that early Christianity severely controlled its adherents. It was a pretty out-in-the-open religion outside of periods where they were being persecuted.

[Brulave]

Just enough so that they don't try to start a revolution in you