Agreed Freedom of association MUST be upheld. BUT... cults must also be required to allow their members to quit at any time with impunity, reveal all malevolent practices to the public without reprisal, and refuse recruitment without inconvenience.

I don't like that the government has so much power, but I understand what you're saying that that's the situation we have right now.

And who makes the determination of what is a cult and what isn't? I think it is ludicrous to give gov't this kind of power because they ALWAYS misuse any power given to them. So my vote is not No, but Hell No! If some voluntarily gives themselves up to a cult mentality, that is their choice.

Organized religion requires funds to operate, and under the U.S. business system, it has to register as a 501c non-profit in order to legally receive money from its followers. Inevitably it's all about power, in the form of cash. As a corporation, organized religion, and its leadership, can be brought up on civil and criminal charges. When the white supremacist group, Aryan Nation, tried to dodge rules by declaring itself a Christian sect, that gave the FBI the means to shut it down through the courts.

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.

This is where some discussion is needed regarding limitations to free will.

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.

The science in some areas is better than in others. The problem here is that if we allow the government to tell us where the science is sound people will be killed and maimed. Thanks for your response. I get it, now.

Ideally shouldn't religions not have legal recognition? Certainly a belief system cannot be brought up on criminal charges. It seems to me all that matters is individuals committing crimes, e.g. incitement to riot, fraud, conspiracy to murder, battery, and so on. Maybe I would learn my view is simplistic if I worked in criminal justice, but it seems to me motive does not matter, except to the police solving the crime. We don't need separate laws for battery motivated by relationship issues, weird cult beliefs, political issues, bigotry, incidental to robbery, etc. It's all just battery. I'm open to learning other views of this.

The ban proposed is actually coming from the Russian government. I am against the ban, because logically and morally it doesn't make sense to outlaw a belief system, and as you say, it opens up the door for government oppression. On top of that, any type of ban coming from a government like authoritarian Russia is immediately suspect. Many in my community have expressed opinions favoring the ban, the main argument seems to be "This group didn't respect my rights, why should we respect theirs?". I think this is a highly emotional response from people, which I completely sympathize with. If a cult ruined your life and lied to you for years, you might have a chip on your shoulder. Bringing it back home, I am part of a campaign to get the tax exempt status revoked for this and other groups like Scientology. It's a small step, but I hope we are successful.

Were they forced to join the Cult or did they join of their own volition? Were they active within the cult? Did they love it until they got in trouble? It is a matter of free choice. And, so is suicide. Passing a law against cults will cause a situation that bleeds over into other organizations such a fraternity/sorority clubs, service clubs religious clubs part of mainstream religions, the Masons, the Odd Fellows both of which have cult-like rituals. Just more muck and mire for the government to use for control.

Hah! Good point, I don't think we refuse to speak to people with whom we disagree, if we did, this website would be long gone.

The example I'm thinking of is a group that bans blood transfusions, as in white and red blood cells and derivatives made from these parts for treatment of massive blood loss, leukemia, and other blood disorders. No red blood cells, no oxygen to other cells usually leads to death.

That would be the end of the Democrat party..
.

The devil is in the details. For example, who gets to define "Cult". As I recall back in the 50's there were those that wanted to identify followers of Ayn Rand as members of a cult because objectivism was a secular religion with a "Highly antisocial belief structure". Be careful.

Less government intervention in our private lives! Enough said.

From the POV of the FBI and BATF?

I hate to use the "slippery slope" argument, but there are folk eager to eliminate all religion who would attempt to classify any theological belief as harmful. I'm personally uninterested in organized religion, but many are comforted by the sense of community in religious society. The 1st amendment holds that people have a right to follow religious belief of their choosing, but a belief system that demonstrates it causes harm to believers can be brought up on criminal charges, with legal recognition withdrawn.

The very basic founding tenants of America are grounded in religious freedom; therefore, the only answer possible here is a resounding NO. With that said our Government's most important responsibility is to protect The People. Adults should be allowed as much freedom as possible even unto them harming themselves through bad choices but not unto harming others. This obviously brings into question as to what about the children of these adults and here I don't have as clear cut an answer. I do not want the Government stepping in and managing anything that we can possibly avoid them messing up. Then again I do not believe anyone wants to see children harmed.

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.

as an individual in a free country, you can belong to any organization you want to...but you will always be responsible for your actions...no "devil made me do it" excuses...govt is there to adjudicate disputes, not "minority report" prevent "possible" disputes from occurring...but then there are "religious" organizations that are fronts for terrorist groups...sticky wicket...

There are means and there are ends. Inevitably, there are many policies which are created with honorably intentions as to the ends, but which go about attempting to achieve these ends through means which trample on the rights and freedom of individuals. But often times the attempt to control action is a greater harm than dealing with the results of the action.

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?

You're assuming the government would both know and act on the truth.

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...

"Could Galt's Gulch online be considered a cult?" I doubt it, since the posters here disagree with each other on so many issues (including what to do about cults).

I belong to a religion that fell out of favor with the federal government back in the 1800s. Eventually the feds sent the largest military expedition prior to the civil war in order to get us under control. It backfired as far as the feds are concerned, but in the interim there was quite a bit of sanctioned and nonsanctioned persecution. So I'm a bit sensitive to banning "a cult". Who defines what a cult is? Ban the deleterious behavior, but the belief is constitutionally protected.

Unfortunately, I think its the old "Slippery Slope" argument. The ultimate end might be, would the government ban the Democratic party. Looking at the description above, one could argue all the items get checked off deeming the party a cult.

If we were to ban cults the PITA and the Democrat party would have to be disbanded!

Haven't heard of anyone making that kind of decision...but I'm sure there are some...however...As I posed elsewhere here, I'm not sure we can call it an occult.
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.