Cults should be exposed, for national security reasons

[TheHonestTruth]

The major religions are cults fighting each other, though most members are rational people, the radicals in their ranks are causing problems. I believe that if the black ops in our government are worth their salt they would be promoting agnostic/atheist viewpoints. Cults are dangerous to rationality and though they have served an evolutionary advantage to this point (satisfaction through a belief in infinite life) I don't think they serve the future well in a global society. Free thinking and reason is on the rise, church attendance/membership is steadily in decline in the US and I hope national security is involved.

Might this explain Christopher Hitchens LOL!

 

[Spartacus FPV]

How do you draw the line? What about the mystics with power?

How do you define cult? How do you draw that arbitrary line without offending the religious? How do you get the legislation passed without their majority vote?

I don't see the national security risk, nor do I want to give any government the power to label a group cultists, then take away their rights to assemble peacably.

Such powers would be easily abused and shouldn't be given to governments; I've been called a cultist because I read Ayn Rand for example. Where does one draw the line?

This is highly unnecessary and unconstitutional. For the sake of what risks exactly?

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Re: How do you draw the line? What about the mystics with power?

How do you define cult? How do you draw that arbitrary line without offending the religious? How do you get the legislation passed without their majority vote?

I don't see the national security risk, nor do I want to give any government the power to label a group cultists, then take away their rights to assemble peacably.

Such powers would be easily abused and shouldn't be given to governments; I've been called a cultist because I read Ayn Rand for example. Where does one draw the line?

This is highly unnecessary and unconstitutional. For the sake of what risks exactly?

Established religions are cults. The truth may hurt but its plain as day. The difference is that if they've been around long enough people stop calling them that. They're simply called a religion. For example, many people would say Mormonism is a religion. However I have family members who are evangelical Christians who refer to them as cultists. My cousin once took a course in his bible class learning about the dangers of cults, and in that lesson Mormonism was discussed. I find it very ironic as Christianity is an offshoot cult of Judaism.

There is nothing unconstitutional about bring truth to the public, nobody is saying they cannot assemble. What I thought I stated clearly enough is that it would be good for some inside plans at bringing these viewpoints more into view, if there was some psyops/black ops stuff that could be done in this respect then I'm all for it. I don't see how that explicitly violates the constitution as its not promoting a specific religion, rather its getting people to think in rational terms about religion as a whole. I mention hitchens because he was a war nut who suddenly started bringing up atheism so it got me wondering if there could be some far reaching connection. I say that mostly in jest but I honestly wouldn't mind it.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

BTW Im using the most correct definition, as listed by its order in a dictionary.

cult - Definitions from Dictionary.com

cult

–noun

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If I, and a few others wanted to worship cheese in private, why must we be exposed?

Established religions are cults.

I implied that in my post, and understand it. You're preaching to the choir.

There is nothing unconstitutional about bring truth to the public, nobody is saying they cannot assemble.

You want to expose them though, which destroys the purpose of any such secret society. Do they not have a right to privacy?

I say that mostly in jest but I honestly wouldn't mind it.

You should think about the logical conclusions one could draw if we allowed for this manner of argument. When they came for our guns I didn't mind, because self defense could be dangerous, when they came for our privacy, I had nothing to hide... etc...

Why should private, peaceful cultists be exposed? The "for the sake of national security" argument doesn't fly with me. People use that to excuse the worst uses of force, and thats the honest truth. A lot of people wouldn't mind a loss of freedom, that doesn't make them right.

I ask again, what are the national security risks posed by said cultists? Or do you want to use the national security argument to expose mystics for what they really believe?

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Re: If I, and a few others wanted to worship cheese in private, why must we be expose

I ask again, what are the national security risks posed by said cultists? Or do you want to use the national security argument to expose mystics for what they really believe?

An argument can certainly be made, as Sam Harris would, that radical religious doctrines do contribute to unnecessary problems in society. Religiously inspired suicide bombers, a film maker killed in the Netherlands, abortion clinics getting bombed, doctors killed. The battle taking place in the gaza strip/west bank. Many security interests are affected worldwide I see no reason to shy away from creating discussion about contributing irrational dogma, religion is certainly that.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Why is it the government's job?

An argument can certainly be made, as Sam Harris would, that radical religious doctrines do contribute to unnecessary problems in society. Religiously inspired suicide bombers, a film maker killed in the Netherlands, abortion clinics getting bombed, doctors killed. The battle taking place in the gaza strip/west bank. Many security interests are affected worldwide I see no reason to shy away from creating discussion about contributing irrational dogma, religion is certainly that.

Oh I know, I've read the End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, I understand fully the stakes of failing to criticize the beliefs that effect people's behavior.

But to openly criticize what is known about a dogma is totally different than engaging in covert ops (and violating their privacy) in order to expose the beliefs that people hold in private.

How do you decide who to investigate? How do you justify an investigation pertaining to perfectly legal matters? There is no law against mysticism, and there is no reason to use the government to do the media's job.

If you want to expose a cult, do it yourself. But not in my name with my tax dollars. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Hitchens are attacking mysticism the right way. None of them are asking for the government to be their enforcer of logic.

To do so would make you guilty of exactly what the theists accuse the "new atheists" of, religious oppression.

 

[rathi]

I would certainly be happy for religion to lose its power over the public. However, its unconstitutional to try and use the government for that purpose. The government is not a tool push your social agenda unto others.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

I would certainly be happy for religion to lose its power over the public. However, its unconstitutional to try and use the government for that purpose. The government is not a tool push your social agenda unto others.

True, true.

Anyway we really don't need government for this purpose its already happening the trends are clear.

 

[SixStringHero]

Re: If I, and a few others wanted to worship cheese in private, why must we be expose

An argument can certainly be made, as Sam Harris would, that radical religious doctrines do contribute to unnecessary problems in society. Religiously inspired suicide bombers, a film maker killed in the Netherlands, abortion clinics getting bombed, doctors killed. The battle taking place in the gaza strip/west bank. Many security interests are affected worldwide I see no reason to shy away from creating discussion about contributing irrational dogma, religion is certainly that.

And atheism hasn't caused strife in the the world? Pol Pot, Stalin...

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Re: If I, and a few others wanted to worship cheese in private, why must we be expose

And atheism hasn't caused strife in the the world? Pol Pot, Stalin...

The atrocities of those regimes were not done in the name of atheism.

 

[Ikari]

The major religions are cults fighting each other, though most members are rational people, the radicals in their ranks are causing problems. I believe that if the black ops in our government are worth their salt they would be promoting agnostic/atheist viewpoints. Cults are dangerous to rationality and though they have served an evolutionary advantage to this point (satisfaction through a belief in infinite life) I don't think they serve the future well in a global society. Free thinking and reason is on the rise, church attendance/membership is steadily in decline in the US and I hope national security is involved.

Might this explain Christopher Hitchens LOL!

Uhhh...the govenrment can not promote one form over another, people are free to believe and practice as they see fit. I'm an atheist, and I would love for our numbers to grow; but people have to come to that choice on their own and it can't be forced in other ways. Likewise, I despise Scientology with a passion. I find it to be one of the most offensive scams and based on such stupidity that only the desperate and rich should apply. That being said, I can't condone any action taken against them less they are infringing upon the rights of others. People must be free to choose for themselves, safe be damned because free is our goal. As such, you can neither promote nor hinder through the use of the government the free practice and expression of religion.

 

[Cephus]

Re: If I, and a few others wanted to worship cheese in private, why must we be expose

The atrocities of those regimes were not done in the name of atheism.

It's pretty hard to do much of anything in the name of atheism, just like it's impossible to do anything in the name of not collecting stamps. Just because there are people who do horrible things and also happen to be atheists is irrelevant, just like the people who do horrible things and also happen to be Christians.

Some people seriously misunderstand the difference between causation and correlation.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Re: If I, and a few others wanted to worship cheese in private, why must we be expose

It's pretty hard to do much of anything in the name of atheism, just like it's impossible to do anything in the name of not collecting stamps. Just because there are people who do horrible things and also happen to be atheists is irrelevant, just like the people who do horrible things and also happen to be Christians.

Some people seriously misunderstand the difference between causation and correlation.

You were right up until you said "just like the people who do horrible things and also happen to be Christians" that is only true to the extent that they're doing something that they don't feel religiously inspired to do.

However, if you decide you want to kill a doctor because he is performing abortions, as some have done, its almost always in the name of religion. If you explicitly declare this as these types of people do, then yes the religion is partly the cause. The difference is that there is no way to prove that an atheist does something bad simply because they're an atheist. Unless you can find a quote from them stating this there is no tangible link. There is no set of dogmatic principles you can directly tie to that viewpoint its simply a lack of a belief in a supernatural being.

 

[Cephus]

Re: If I, and a few others wanted to worship cheese in private, why must we be expose

You were right up until you said "just like the people who do horrible things and also happen to be Christians" that is only true to the extent that they're doing something that they don't feel religiously inspired to do.

That's exactly what I was trying to show, just because someone does X and believes Y doesn't mean that Y is automatically responsible for X. Certainly if that individual states that they did X because of Y, that changes things and there most certainly are Christians who have done horrible things because of their religious beliefs. So have Muslims. So have Hindus. So have pretty much every other religious group, although I'm having a hard time thinking of a horrible thing the Jainists have done, but there certainly could be.

 

[rathi]

Religion can certainly be used to cause someone to take violent action. History is full of examples. Abortion bombings are an example of modern actions. However, most violence committed by Christians nowadays in the west is not religious motivated. Most killings are over drugs, anger, pride, revenge, ect. Religion is not the primary motivating factor.

 

[Hatuey]

I think cults should be at the very least monitored by security agencies. Heaven's Gate, People's Temple are just three small reasons as to why Branch Davidians.

 

[Ikari]

I think cults should be at the very least monitored by security agencies. Heaven's Gate, People's Temple are just three small reasons as to why Branch Davidians.

Not less they have broken laws and it can be proven. If warrants can be obtained for monitoring through normal and rightful means, that is one thing. But you can't allow for the arbitrary surveillance of your own populace because you find something scary.